SILVER SPRING, Md.  Five different political contests are being conducted right now. Only two are evident to the naked eye.

The first of the visible contests pits Mitt Romney against Rick Santorum for the Republican presidential nomination. The results here in Maryland and in Wisconsin this week tell us who has a commanding lead there.

The second visible contest pits Romney against President Barack Obama. That one began this month with their twin addresses to the convention of editors in Washington. Obama has a 4-point lead, according to a Gallup poll conducted last week for USA Today.

Now to the three contests below the surface.

One is being mounted by Romney to wrest control of GOP convention delegates most people assumed were the property of Santorum and Newt Gingrich. This is a subterranean game Romney likely will eventually win, quietly, slowly  but decisively.

The second contest barely beneath the surface is over the character of the GOP. It is part of the eternal struggle between populists and plutocrats.

Don't think of this as a proxy for Romney vs. Santorum no matter how many times the former senator goes bowling. This class struggle began before they arrived on the scene and will continue after their departure. It is the mirror of the struggle among Democrats between the circle around Franklin Roosevelt, rooted in the faculty offices of Harvard, and the Southern Democrats, rooted in county courthouses and in the kennels of the yellow dogs.

The final contest is over the nature of conservatism. It may look like the struggle for control of the GOP, but it's larger than that. Conservatism is a movement; the Republicans are a party. For many years they lived separate lives and may do so again. The struggle over the character of the party is fundamentally being conducted in the heart, the struggle over the nature of conservatism in the head.

The week that the founding father of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater, won the 1964 Republican presidential nomination, political scientist Andrew Hacker assessed the new movement  planted in the same soil that created John Kennedy's New Frontier and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society  this way: "The new conservatism is the result of the democratic process itself: the widening of new opportunities for millions of Americans who have risen to a better location in life and who at all costs want to ensure that they remain there."

That description now looks antiquarian. Modern Conservatism 2.0  created in a world where Goldwater is a memory for all but a few; where his protege Ronald Reagan is a symbol, but not an intimate presence; and where vast swaths of working Americans have a conservative impulse  has an economic component and a social component. It is chary of government involvement in the economy but open to government restrictions in social and cultural life.

How wealthy a country this must be to afford, or to tolerate, five vital contests at once! But this is a time of economic privation and of political riches; not since the 1930s, when the economy was ailing and the Democrats were remaking themselves, did America have so many parallel contests. And during that period  indeed for much of the era between 1916 and 1960  the Republicans snoozed, putting up worthy candidates with formidable records (Charles Evans Hughes, Herbert Hoover, Thomas Dewey) but who did not stir the drink, nor roil the waters.

Today, passions among Republicans run high  itself a great departure from the norm for almost a majority of Americans, who recall the GOP as a sleepy outpost of politicians who defined themselves by what they were against (the New Deal, mostly but not always fervently) and what they wanted to promote (prudence and thrift, mostly). When the Republicans of yore held a shootout, it was over the identity of their nominee, not over the ideology of their party. This was true even in the principal ideological struggle of the era, in 1952 between Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio and Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower, without any discernible ideology, prevailed.

Now the party is packed with passion, but not necessarily primed for resolution. Indeed, the emergence of Romney probably postpones the resolution of much of the Republican dispute.

He personifies the managerial wing of the Republican Party, the strain that included Hoover, 1940 nominee Wendell Willkie, to some extent Dewey and certainly both Presidents Bush. But he is at best a convert to movement conservatism and, to some in that movement, a sheep in sheep's clothing.

Indeed, to conservatives he is reminiscent of Averell Harriman's 1967 assessment of Maxwell Taylor: "He is a very handsome man, and a very impressive one," Harriman said, "and he is always wrong." Probably unfair to both men, but there are no points for fairness in war or politics.

While the 2012 primaries and caucuses likely postponed the resolution of the battle over the character of the GOP, they intensified the conflict over the nature of conservatism, one that Reagan kept under the lid of the boiling pot but which began to spill over in 1988, scalding conservatives to this day. Santorum is one of the first Republican politicians to electrify both economic and social conservatives, but his hopes in the visible part of this campaign are dwindling.

Santorum may in fact be conducting his last stand in his home state, which ordinarily would be an advantage but in this peculiar year may be peculiarly unfortunate for the onetime Pennsylvania senator, who was soundly defeated in his reelection battle six years ago.

Santorum forces continually point to May for their breakout  the terrain there favors him and the issues will be in his wheelhouse  but his campaign may not endure that long, in part because of Romney's diligence in one of the invisible contests, the process of peeling away delegates that look as if they are in the Santorum and Gingrich columns, but in reality are not settled anywhere.

There is a tropism to politics, and it favors the front-runner. Watch how Romney, who lost the Iowa caucuses in January by a handful of votes, will look like the triumphant conqueror of Iowa in August.

The subterranean contests count. Some of them last decades. Some of them choose nominees.

Some ideological clunkers mixed in with some kernels of truth. An interesting column  that dances around the depth of distrust conservatives hold for the GOP establishment.

Newt well knows the subterranean delegate battle and hes waging it.

Newt Gingrich is going after unpledged delegates - that haven't committed in primaries already completed, including all the PA (72) and MT (26) and (IL (69) delegates, since these delegates remain unpledged regardless of primary vote.

AND though there are going to be some winner take all primaries, the following contests are also on the schedule:

Then there are the Contested delegates: . delegates have to be "uncontested" in order to count. The frontrunner's rivals argue some of the states that awarded Romney all of their delegates violated Republican National Committee rules when they moved their contests ahead of April 1 and therefore should distribute delegates proportionally. This dispute, if it continues, would not be ruled on until the August convention in Tampa.

"All the media counts right now give him all of Florida, which is against the rules, all of Arizona, which is against the rules, and all of Idaho," Gingrich said Monday. "Those are all three proportional states and they should only be counting his share. So he has to win 1,144 uncontested delegates."

Jan 30, 2012 "So the winner on Tuesday gets all of Floridas 50 delegates to the GOP convention, right? It says so right in the Republican Party of Florida primary rules.

Eh . . . probably. You see, the Republican National Committee wanted the primary season to start later (that didnt work out so well) and they wanted the early states to award their delegates proportionally. But those rules came about under Chairman Michael Steele; by the time Florida set its date, Reince Priebus was running the show, and the RNC approved the current winner-takes-all system. The Florida GOP says its a non-issue; the current RNC leadership has signed off on the winner-take-all system.

The Tampa Bay Timess Adam Smith reports, All it takes is a registered Florida Republican to file a protest with the RNC, and the partys contest committee would have to consider the issue when it meets in August just before the convention.

The partys primary rules were intended to encourage a longer primary season, while ensuring that four smaller states  Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina  hold the first contests. Only those states were permitted to hold primaries or caucuses before March 6, the RNC decreed, while any state that held a contest prior to April 1 would award its delegates proportionally. Under the rules, any party that violated the sanctioned calendar would lose half its delegates and potentially face further penalties.

Republican leaders in Florida, determined to give the state a big say in picking the nominee, decided having their delegation slashed from 99 to 50 was worth it and set Floridas primary for Jan. 31. The RNC has said Florida will be a winner-take-all primary, but that decision is still subject to challenge.

If tomorrows results are in line with recent polls, Mitt Romney will win 50 delegates and everyone else will win none. (Thus, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul spent a limited amount of time and resources in Florida.) But if it were proportional, Romney would win about 20-25, Gingrich would win about 14-16, Santorum would win about 5-7, and Paul would win 5-6.

In other words, Newt Gingrich may have enormous incentive to file protests and perhaps even legal challenges to the RNC to make Florida allocate its delegates proportionally."

Instead of Romney and Santorum being separated by nearly 400 delegates, as widely reported -- which suggests Romney has essentially sewn up the race -- the White House hopefuls are separated by only 229 delegates, said the memo published by CNN and reviewed by United Press International.

"This race is much closer than the media and Establishment Republicans would like to report," the Thursday memo said, as Santorum met with several conservative leaders in Northern Virginia to consider strategies to help his campaign.

In a year...the GOP Washington types will be sitting around looking at the devastation...Obama reelected, the Dems picking up twenty seats in the House and holding the Senate...and they’ll be saying...maybe we should have nominated a conservative.

The McCain/Palin ticket was up ++4 to 10 pts in some polls, days prior to Election 2008. So rather than helping the GOP, Romney and TeamROMNEY and the RNME (Republican National Media Establishment) decided to attack Gov. Palin to throw Election2008.

The Palmetto Scoop reported: "One of the first stories to hit the national airwaves was the claim of a major internal strife between close McCain aides and the folks handling his running mate Sarah Palin." "Im told by very good sources that this was indeed the case and that a rift had developed, but it was between Palins people and the staffers brought on from the failed presidential campaign of former Gov. Mitt Romney, not McCain aides." "The sources said nearly 80 percent of Romneys former staff was absorbed by McCain and these individuals were responsible for what amounts to a premeditated, last-minute sabotage of Palin." aides loyal to Romney inside the McCain campaign, said The Scoop, reportedly saw that Palin would be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012 or 2016, which made her a threat to another presidential quest by Romney.

"These staffers are now out trying to finish her off .hoping it would ingratiate themselves with Mitt Romney."

The Texax SREC is making noise about trying to change the Texas allocation method to a ‘winner take all’. Apparently some are trying to get enough votes and then call an emergency session to pass the change. Not sure what the possibility of it passing is.

In a year...the GOP Washington types will be sitting around looking at the devastation...Obama reelected, the Dems picking up twenty seats in the House and holding the Senate...and theyll be saying...maybe we should have nominated a conservative.

No they won't. The GOPE would rather lose the election to Obama than win with a conservative. They hated Reagan and they hate Newt who is the only conservative in this race.

The GOP has shown itself to be uwholly unworthy of protecting this country.

In the 20 years since 1992, the GOP has been feckless in defeating the Dems, in spite of our efforts to infuse conservative principles and candidates into it.When they were put into power withthe House, the Senate and the White House, they failed to lead and to get the problems under control, but made things exponentially worse. Thye failed to do the hard work of convicting a lawless, impeached President. They have failed to counter a lawless, ineligible President in the face of his constant trashing of the Constitution.

This is the most important election of our lifetimes, and I rank it among 1860 and 1980 in the effects on the future of America. And for this, we are beign given Romney, who does not have a Reublican or conservative bone in his body.

I’m all in for Newt and praying he gets to Tampa and we have some kind of showdown in Tampa. My back-up position is ABO in case Romney becomes our nominee.

But win or lose after 11/6, I believe it is time for the GOP to go the way of the Whigs. Conservatives need their own party to get America back to greatness, and the GOP is no longer the vehicle to do so.

Just like there comes a time when the old clunker needs to be retired and money for repairs directed towards a new vehicle, thus it is such for the GOP.

After 2012, we need to have a third party. America will survive. And thrive if we do so.

25
posted on 04/07/2012 6:17:15 AM PDT
by exit82
(Democrats are the enemies of freedom. Be Andrew Breitbart.)

America First Party
Christian Liberty Party
America’s Party
American Party
Independent American Party

Americans Elect
Citizens Party
Independence Party of America
Modern Whig Party
Reform Party of the United States of America
Unity Party of America
Justice Party USA

Working Families Party
Labor Party
Socialist Party USA
Communist Party USA
Socialist Labor Party of America*
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Socialist Equality Party (United States)
Socialist Workers Party
Freedom Socialist Party
Socialist Action
Socialist Alternative
Workers World Party

American Populist Party
Boston Tea Party
Jefferson Republican Party
Objectivist Party
American Reform Party

Yes it will. A Republican party that would nominate a man whose record is left wing enough to be a Democrat is not a party that any conservative could support. It is a sign that the GOP is willing to move to the left. And if so, so be it. I won’t go with it; I would think some others would not also.

31
posted on 04/07/2012 7:50:48 AM PDT
by GenXteacher
(He that hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart!)

Anyone looking at the creation of a new party needs to take a look at history and how its been done in the past. The transition from Whig to Republican wasn’t a simple step. It required the transition through the short lived Freesoil party which few people have ever heard of.

They never elected a president but did elect a fair number of congressmen. Most important they attracted abolitionist Democrats and Whigs who became the GOP.

32
posted on 04/07/2012 8:12:33 AM PDT
by cripplecreek
(What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)

If what you say is true...and it may be...why are we still voting Republican? What good is this party? What’s the point?

I voted for Bob Barr in ‘08 and was roundly castigated by some on this board and others for admitting such...if the GOP is going to allow the msm to pick our nominee every four years...what is the point of having the GOP?

Good analysis CW, the author has a good grasp on most everything, except to the point where he says that Texas is in Santorum’s favor, based on his “economic” stand. The “issues” on his “Social” stand are also troubled, but the biggest miscalculation is Santorum’t complete lack of economic understanding, as well as his plagiaristic use of the other candidates previous ideas, that Santorum has adopted as his own and claims that they were his ideas from the start.

As far as the illustration of the shape of the GOP, he emphasized the size of the “Populist” branch in the party as being much larger than it actually is. The “Plutocrat” branch is correctly in charge, and always will be, because they have the ability to organize.

The “Populist” branch is nothing more that a fragmented, disorganized herd of cats and never will get it together like they keep threatening to do. Ross Perot is the epitome of that branch and took it to the limits of it's potential.

Ronald Reagan was a rare politician who, through his vast ability and pragmatic approach, was able to gather these groups together for two election cycles in a row. And Reagan clearly admitted that the “Populist” branch, was the most difficult to appease or influence, mainly because of their incessant malcontent and nearly psychotic negativity.

34
posted on 04/07/2012 8:20:15 AM PDT
by PSYCHO-FREEP
(If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)

If Romney is the nominee there will be no national GOP in 2016. There may not even be a national GOP after August 2012.

The party is bigger than the presidency. The GOP was 'dead' in 92, 'dead' in 96, 'dead' in 2006/2008. The problem is most conservatives are too uninformed and more-so too impatient to fight the party battles needed.

How many people are precinct delegates or precinct captains? How many are involved in local parties? How many have been delegates to state conventions? State convention is also were our state RNC reps are chosen.

Generally, people who keep threatening to go third party lack the foresight and discipline to work inside the party to reform it. They wrongly think that threats work. nope - VOTES work.

The biggest myth around here is that the elites dictate what happens. Actually, its the GOP primaries, and GOP primary voters, who dictate the course of the party. and who influences that vote? precinct captains and those involved in primary campaigns are key. the top dogs (’elites’) have sway but its actually not much compared with the power of the grassroots.

Since they have ignored the blow outs of 2006 and again in 2008, and ignored the wake up call the Tea Party gave them in 2010, Romney may be the best thing that's happened to the Republican party since Reagan.

If his candidacy can't put a stake through the heart of the rino insanity that rules the party and through the loyalty of those who follow it, nothing can.

Personally, I just don't understand his appeal.

His record, his flip and his flops, and now his very negative campaign are not what I vote for.

42
posted on 04/07/2012 2:24:34 PM PDT
by GBA
(America has been infected. Be the cure!)

“If Romney is the nominee there will be no national GOP in 2016. There may not even be a national GOP after August 2012.”

There will be one, just not one lead by Mitt unless mitt wants to sing our tunes.

As I have reiterated many times. In the end our battle cannot be won in Washington only in our State houses can the battle for conservatism be won. It thus does not matter who becomes president. We must drive issues from our States, not Washington if we are to have any hope of reversing the flow of power in our directions.

I will vote for Mitt because he is better than Obama, I won’t worry about Santorm or Newt because they can’t win at this point and winning in their desired contest(the presidency) is not important anyway.

In the end there are 50 State & local republican party’s that we must focus on. We must obtain control of the majority of our State & local governments. We must drive them towards resistance to Washington.

Retaining the house, or taking the senate might be helpful politically crippling Washington’s ability to stop or resist our efforts. But Washington cannot and will not lead us to where we need to go. They will not willingly give up power.

We must uses our States to wrestle that power from them, Washington will fall inline only when it becomes practically & politically done.

Interesting question.. A conservative might do it..
Seems the republican party generally does NOT want a conservative..
-OR- if they do obviously the voting mechanism is corrupted.. (DEEPLY).. could be both..

Which makes(and is making) some wonder if they are actually republicans..
Wondering WHO ARE THEY politically..

Selecting a liberal Mormon from Massachusetts as republican poster boy.. is cartoonish..
Many including me are not amused..

Mormons follow an Angel called Imoron or MoronI or something like that..
It looks increasingly like republicans are indeed MORON’s..
-OR- theres a rogue program in the voting machines.. call it a Virus.. or Trojan.. or Worm..

44
posted on 04/07/2012 3:42:56 PM PDT
by hosepipe
(This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)

I have one hope. It’s that while Romney isn’t conservative, if elected President, he’ll be forced by circumstances (both economic and political) to make conservative choices. Remember, when Bill Clinton ran for President, he didn’t plan on getting people off of welfare rolls, but was forced by circumstances to do so. Also, Romney values his popularity and doesn’t want the U.S. to go off a cliff under his watch.

Conservatives shouldn’t give him unqualified support, but we can threaten to withbhold support if he doesn’t meet certain conditions (judges, entitlement reform). Perhaps keeping him under the threat of losing support would be more effective than refusing to support him under any circumstances.

The truth is that the United States may not be able to survive a second Obama term. Doesn’t it suck that this is what we’ve been reduced to?

45
posted on 04/07/2012 9:38:47 PM PDT
by Clintonfatigued
(A chameleon belongs in a pet store, not the White House)

If Romney is the nominee there will be no national GOP in 2016. There may not even be a national GOP after August 2012.

I disagree - the GOP would be just a little more left-leaning and watered down, but it's a GOP that we all recognized since 1988 - George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain. All got the nominee because it was "their turn" or they had the most money, and all liked Big Government, and all either lost outright to Democrats, or helped turn the White House over to Democrats.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.